baldursgatefandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:Baraz
Welcome Hi, welcome to ! Probably nobody has yet looked at your edit to the Time System page, but someone will. Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! CompleCCity (talk) 02:16, May 12, 2019 (UTC) Cloak of the Sewers rat Hi. About your addition to Rat: *What do you mean with 1d2+4 "(each)"? *Does the bonus damage by strength has to be added? *Is this exceptional strength also gained by the form? *May the armor class bonuses be gained through equipment – like a shield, a protection ring or a belt? By the way, I've moved the section to below "quests" (which in most cases is presented more prominently), reworded it a bit, placed links, applied proper formatting, fixed a typo and capitalization, and used "may …" instead of "rules unknown". -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cC -- 07:59, May 31, 2019 (UTC) :Answers : :*I meant : 1d2+4 damage for each of the two attacks or 1d2+4 / 1d2+4. :*the +4 is logically from the Strength 18/00, which is from the Rat form, not from the characters. :*for armor, I do not know or understand its math. It is very odd: my best character gets 8 AC, others 10 AC in Rat form, but I can tell for sure that Dex 18 is ignored... :Baraz (talk) 16:55, May 31, 2019 (UTC) ::Then I don't think it's necessary to explicitely mention that the damage applies to "each" of the two attacks. ::18/00 adds a +6 bonus – I've updated it. ::Does your "best character" has any class related AC modifiers? Like a kensai or swashbuckler for example? ::-- -- You talkin' to me? -- cC -- 09:04, June 1, 2019 (UTC) :::No, it is 1d2+4 no matter what the Strenght is shown. Objectively, the damage is 1d2+4 and it shows Strenght 18/00. I know this is illlogically, especially, on Warriors, but that is what the game does. :::Baraz (talk) 17:39, June 1, 2019 (UTC) ::::Okay, fixed. -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cC -- 18:10, June 1, 2019 (UTC) Physical damage And "hi!" again. Regarding physical damage: *"As the page is about Physical damage types, the technical names have been placed more clearly forward." – Good idea! I've done so for magical damage – why not also here? *"Replaced weapon Category stub with existing pages." – Well, not so good idea … ** can't be "stubs" per se. A category is only a group or list of articles that have something specific in common, e.g. the weapon type (or, according to an existing article, the "Weapon Class" – a term, I personally don't like; I've replaced your link to Weapon Proficiency with that one). **Linking to these categories was intention: the specific links you placed don't present a weapon type but the basic variant of it. Dagger, for example, is no overview of daggers in general, but about a specific item. Piercing damage, however, is dealt by most or perhaps all daggers. So, as long as daggers isn't made an article that can serve as such an overview, it's in this case (and others) better to land on the daggers category if it's about this weapon type. I've put back the previous links (and added slashing for halberds which I had forgotten somehow). *"… added weapon types beyond BG1" – This is how the weapon category is currently structured: by proficiencies. I have to admit that it's yet incomplete and was only resurrected recently. I'm working on it – do you have ideas for a better structure? *"Capitalized all proper terms …" – Terms as "daggers" and "blunt weapons" are no proper nouns. *In addition, I've removed the bold formatting from the types, eliminated redundant spaces and brought it all in line again with the other sections of the related main article. If you really want to "unstub" the article, please leave the introduction for now and expand below, with new sections. But listing each single weapon type is needless when links to their overviews are shown: a link is there to be clicked. -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cC -- 08:51, May 31, 2019 (UTC) :My answer : since this wiki includes BG1 and BG2 (etc.), I was finding the old weapon classes not that useful or confusing. The proper weapons pages are adapted for both BG1 and BG2 and just more useful all around. :Adding all the various weapon types existant (including BG2) beside the physical damage types is more useful to the viewers: do you not agree? I do not find the category pages as useful nor user-friendly at all. :( as for bold and capitalization : fair enough if it is the standard on this wiki ) :Baraz (talk) 17:01, May 31, 2019 (UTC) ::You seem to be really fond of bold lettering. ;) ::I agree that listing each weapon type for each damage type is indeed more useful. But take a look at the article in its current state, and also at elemental damage: they are hardly more than an intro for an article, the lead section. Lead sections usually should only be an introduction to the article's topic, briefly giving the basic facts and tell what this is about. Details, as your proposed list of each weapon type, would then go into their own sections. That's what I meant with "unstubbing the article". So, feel free to add a section for each of the types and list the related weapon types there. Keep in mind that each damage type has its own page as well – perhaps you start with those, to avoid redundancy. ::More about those categories. ::*There's something called . In most cases – there are exceptions – an article should only be in the most specific category of its tree, and not also in the one above, or the one above that, and so on. Same applies to categories themselves. ::*The original Baldur's Gate I weapon proficiencies are still valid in the original Baldur's Gate II and all Enhanced Editions. Most creatures in the latter games have not assigned a more specific proficiency, and if they deal with a weapon that relies on such, according bonuses or penalties are applied by the original system. Thus, the "old" proficiencies are still important. ::*So, if Long Sword is a specific weapon proficiency in the latter games, but is grouped together with others under Large Sword, I think it's okay to subordinate these categories in the same way. However, this may be an exception, such as mentioned above, and when the system stands and is finalized, all specific proficiency/weapon-type categories may be found directly under "Weapons", together with blunt and spiked and such. ::And it's absolutely okay for you to not find categories useful or user-friendly – they are only one way to organize information and articles. As implied above, the future of the article daggers and similar will be an overview about the weapon type, and also list variants of the basic weapon, rather than being a redirect to the category. I'm currently reworking the item infobox – and when through with that, all item articles, including weapons, will receive an update. During that process, I plan to make these overviews. This will, however, cost much time. If you're willing to help, you can start creating the overviews at any time. :) ::-- -- You talkin' to me? -- cC -- 09:50, June 1, 2019 (UTC) OK. Thank you for the explaination : much appreciated. I might (no promises) check out the specific pages per damage type. Baraz (talk) 17:42, June 1, 2019 (UTC)